The
epistemic
process is grounded for the hypothetical constructs of the natural
phenomena, construed with their systematically explicated
underlying vortical structures and mechanisms that are coherently
based on the UVS
model.

“By
knowing the paradoxical effect of nature, it enlightens on how nature
negates to render delusions in a typical topsy-turvy manner.”
- UVS inspired -

The
inductive resolutions in the coherentism
of the UVS research, are for perceiving the actualities of natural phenomena
in their subliminally negated observations. And with its transcendental
perspectivalism coherently grounded to the conceptual framework of
UVS, it could methodically resolve the
cognitive paradoxes
that are
being naturally manifested in the subliminally negated
observations of natural phenomena.

Every
inductive resolution of the UVS research for the natural phenomenon that
enigmatically demonstrates hyperspheric vortical characteristics in its
apparent observation, is implicitly
or explicitly
explicated with its five
Ws on how it subliminally manifests its delusional
observation. It
explicates on who (the natural phenomenon) and to whom
it demonstrates the delusional observation, what is the
illusion, where does it negate, when
does it occur, and why is it delusional.

With
the resolved cognitive paradoxes, this epistemic process thus reveals
how such delusional observations of natural phenomena, are paradoxically
rendered in all sorts of subliminally negated circumstances.

In
a nutshell, with these epistemic
theories of truth, this is the primary methodology of the UVS research
for its qualitative evaluations on the vortically demonstrated natural
phenomena of the entire observable universe throughout macrocosms
and microcosms.

Remarks:
Despite these natural phenomena have anomalies
or unsolved
problems in physics, the UVS research qualitatively resolved the physical
paradoxes of their conventional wisdom with its inductive resolutions
on their actualities, and they are substantiated with proofs or compelling
evidence.

The
inductive resolutions of the UVS research that invoke their transcendental
perceptions with the underlying structures and mechanisms postulated for
enigmatic natural phenomena, are extensively enlightening.
The resolving power for cognitive paradoxes with the inductive resolutions,
is unequivocally
revealing. The explanatory
power with the hypothetical constructs in the perspectivism
of the UVS conceptual framework, is downright groundbreaking.
And the predictive
power in its qualitative
predictions explicated with the UVS predications on the actualities
of natural phenomena, is outright revolutionary.

“With
the visualizations on the underlying structures and mechanisms of natural
phenomena,
these intuitively induce the resolutions for the revelations on their
actualities.”
- UVS inspired -

The
scale
invariance of UVS coherently pans out with numerous empirical observations
of natural phenomena at many levels from cosmic scale to subatomic scale.
Henceforth, in the UVS
worldview, with systemic syntheses
of the evidently qualified UVS hypotheses, the UVS research collectively
synthesizes these hypotheses to augment in a systematical positive feedback
loop for its development as
a theory
of everything.

And
with loads of empirical evidence that coherently and systematically substantiate
the propositional actualities of these natural phenomena, the UVS treatise
cogently offers a unifying way for perceiving how the entire observable
universe works unisonally throughout macrocosms and microcosms as a single
system.

In
a nutshell, the following epistemic processes with their grounded
theory methodologies, constitute as a recursive epistemic process
and methodology of the UVS research in a systematical positive
feedback loop for its development:

The
epistemic process for developing the hypothetical constructs
of natural phenomena, which are based on the UVS model
with its reality paradigm shift for the perspectivalism
of the UVS worldview, is grounded on coherence theory
of truth as its grounded theory methodology for postulating
their underlying structures and mechanisms. This process
coherently conceives the UVS hypothetical constructs to
invoke their transcendental perspectives in the conceptual
framework of UVS, and thus methodically resolves the cognitive
paradoxes of the natural phenomena with the elucidations
of their delusions.

The
epistemic process for developing the UVS predications,
which explicate on the actualities of natural phenomena
from the UVS perspective
for what actually are going on, is grounded on correspondence
theory of truth as its grounded theory methodology for
qualifying their predicated actualities. This process
with the gathering of empirical evidence to prove the
UVS predications, is subjected to their verifications
in a positive feedback loop to refine or reject the predicated
actualities of the natural phenomena.

The
epistemic process for developing
the UVS treatise as a coherent theory of everything, is
grounded on epistemic theories of truth as its grounded
theory methodology for systemic syntheses of the evidently
qualified UVS hypotheses. This process collectively synthesizes
the UVS hypotheses to augment in a positive feedback loop
for developing its theory of everything, and thus coherently
explicates on how everything in the observable universe,
unisonally works as a single system.

It
heuristically propositioned a concept of celestial mechanism that
is consistent as well as universally coherent, and this extends the
concept for the planetary motions of the Copernican heliocentrism.

4.

It
critically falsified the Big Bang theory on its propositions for metric
expansion of space and cosmic inflation.

5.

It
rigorously demonstrated that the posit for time in modern physics
is fallacious.

6.

It
explicitly posited invariant space and time with a scientific model
on a neoclassical platform, and in its paradigm shift, it eliminates
the intuitively unthinkable paradoxes in the abstracts of modern physics.

7.

It
logically debunked the scientific consensus on the null hypothesis
of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

8.

It
qualitatively unified the gravity phenomenon with the three other
fundamental interactions of nature.

9.

It
coherently explicated cosmic evolution from the macrocosms to the
microcosms.

10.

It
cogently illustrated how the entire observable universe works unisonally
throughout macrocosms and microcosms as a single system.

The
resolved natural cognitive paradoxes
can be efficaciously used to critically review
these scientific theories from their
first
principles,
and thus could elucidate the science delusions in their spurious
propositions that predicate
what are going on in the empirically observed natural phenomena.

With the elucidated science delusions, these can resolve the misconceptions
of those fallacious mainstream scientific
theories
that insidiously
mislead with the artificial cognitive paradoxes created in their scientific
constructs.

With
their science delusions elucidated in their independent qualitative evaluations
for reviewing the criteria
of truth in the theories
of justification for these scientific theories, their artificial
cognitive paradoxes
were thus meticulously resolved.

Specifically,
the artificial cognitive paradoxes of these fundamentally incorrect
scientific theories, caused
their physical
paradoxes as a result of their fallaciously contrived posits
that render all sorts of science delusion.

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself
-
- and you are the easiest person to fool.”- Richard Feynman

It
is generally believed that the prejudices
and discriminations
like those stemmed from geocentrism in its science delusion, were events
of the past. Moreover, there is also a prevalent deep-rooted belief that
we are now in a golden
age of physics,
and scientific
realism rules with impeccable
and unassailableproofs.
It is asserted that all the scientifically established proofs for their
empirical observations, were accomplished with the well-established scientific
method of modern
science; the claims of scientific proofs for empirical observations
were deemed to be rigorously tested and proven with their repeatable scientific
experiments. And so any critical discrepancy in the validated scientific
theories,
should have had been eradicated.

A
scientific theory that was misled by its natural cognitive paradox, could
be
validated in the delusion of its scientific construct with its artificial
cognitive paradox.

This
is regardless of how developed, how profound, how logical, how coherent,
how consistent and precise the scientific theory is with its quantitative
analysis for its empirical observation, how diversely it has had been
independently and successfully tested with repeatable experiments,
how pragmatic
it is in its applied
science, and how broadly it has had been peer
reviewed and accepted by so many experts
for a very long period of time.

Unsustainably,
the general principle of the contemporary scientific method, intrinsically
suffers foundational crisis with its fallaciously endorsed posits for
developing scientific theories. In the delusions
of grandeur with its confirmation
bias for the empirical observations, its peer review process for validation
has thus been construed with its fallacious criteria
of truthon
its outset. The general developments for such scientific theories of the
mainstream physical
sciences, are thus established on the science delusions of their physical
paradoxes.

See
externally linked topics on "Criticism
of science" that elaborates on the cognitive and publication
biases within science, and "Foundational
crisis" that elaborates on the attempts to provide unassailable
foundations that were found to suffer from various paradoxes.

“A
fallaciously endorsed posit of a scientific model,
is the mother of all its science delusions.”- UVS inspired-

Any
law
of physics that suffers foundational crisis with its fallacious posit
for its empirical observation, would paradoxically distort its perception
of reality. This is despite its validated conclusions are analytically
true, and can also pragmatically work. And with its validated quantitative
analyses deduced in its science delusion by begging
the question for its premises,
it could paradoxically establish its deductive conclusions that would
be fallaciously reckoned with scientific
consensus as scientifically
established facts.

Any
scientific theory that was proved in its mathematical
construct to be analytically true, could be unwarily misled by
a natural cognitive paradox of its empirical observation. As such, it
would have been fallaciously established in the delusion of
its subjective reality,
and ignorantly refers to its paradoxically perceived observation as theactuality.
This erroneous perception for the actuality
of its empirical observation,
is perceivedwith its artificial
cognitive paradox
in its subliminallynegated
circumstances.

Laws
of mathematics with deductive
reasoningthough
are effective tools in applied science, and the propositional
knowledge of a theory established by deductive analysis, although
can be made unassailably
conclusive in its mathematical
model with analytical proof for its
empirical observations,
it is not the proof for its actuality. It must not be mistaken that the
actuality of any natural phenomenon, can be conclusively and absolutely
proven by its mathematical interpretation with validated and precise quantitative
predictions that are deduced with its axiomatic
mathematical construct.

“As
far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain,
and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”-
Albert Einstein

The
deep-rooted belief in the capability of mathematical principles for conducting
evaluation to validate a scientific claim solely through unassailable
deductive
analysis with quantitative
rigors,
could lead to the illusion of knowledge under the subliminallynegated
circumstances of its science delusion.

A
mathematically proven conclusion of its mathematical constructin
theoretical
physics solely deduced with quantitative rigors, although could have
integrated its inference
of reality
with the empirical observation, in its abstract
with its a priori
assumption, it was based on its philosophy
of science with varying degrees of uncertainty for its interpretation
of the numbers obtained from the observation.

All
mathematical constructs of natural phenomena in theoretical physics, technically
are their hypotheses
established with the propositions of their axioms.
And as much as almost all of the recognized experts in mainstream mathematical
physics believe math is the language of the universe,
any axiom that was validated with the a
posteriori conclusion in the mathematical construct of any natural
phenomenon, is not conclusively proven at all when referred to reality.

“Despite
mathematics can precisely describe empirically observed natural
phenomena with its validated hypothetical constructs, by itself
it is not the correct tool to accurately describe the actualities
of the natural phenomena.”-
UVS inspired-

The
science
as defined in theoretical physics with the contemporary scientific method
to develop hypothetical constructs for emulating natural phenomena based
on its posits for objective
reality, is merely the doctrine for its a
posteriori methodologies and techniques of quantitative analysis,
which are for explicating the empirically observed behaviors of physical
objects in its postulated subjective reality.

See
an externally linked topic on "Allegory
of the Cave" that elaborates on obfuscated perceptions with an
illustration of a reality that is being perceived with shadows.

“You
can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created.”-
Albert Einstein

Any
person in all honesty developing any scientific theory with the contemporary
scientific method, construed with mathematical rigors in physics to establish
thea posteriori knowledge of any empirically observed
natural phenomenon, and thus asserts the axioms of its a priori
proposition with its unassailable deductions, at best is an intelligent
fool fooling himself in circular
reasoning. And with its mathematically validated proof for the a
priori proposition concluded with its a posteriori
knowledge, the scientific theory justified
in such positivism,
at its best can convincingly fool the mass majority of people with its
illusion of knowledge that was construed in its artificial cognitive paradox.

All
delusions of the a posteriori
propositions that render their illusions of knowledge, are paradoxically
stemmed from their fallacious posits.

“Any
intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent.”-
Cited
by Albert
Einstein

It
is a myth that solely through deductive analyses based
on scientific
models for attaining highly precise and consistent quantitative predictions,
and thus rigorously develops scientific theories with mathematical
proofs for testing by repeatable physics
experiments for their empirical observations, is generally the correct
scientific method for the investigation of natural phenomena to make scientific
progress. Despite independent repeatable experiments could effectively
eradicate pseudoscience,
the contemporary scientific method muddles preciseness
as accurateness,
and merely are pushing for higher resolution measurements
that could be consistently measured in all sorts of observational delusion.

See
the UVS topic on "Logic
and belief systems" that illustrates and elaborates on the causalities
for all sorts of science delusions.

A
simple example to illustrate a cognitive paradox fallacy of an apparent
observation that was resolved, can be explicated with a fallacious perception
of the geocentrism. It was postulated that the Sun takes approximately
twenty-four hours to revolve around the Earth, and this could be empirically
observed and quantitatively verified. And since ancient times, the quantitative
prediction for this perception had been more precisely measured by using
all sorts of clock with ongoing improvements for higher precision. In
modern
science, this few millennium old mainstream knowledge was qualitatively
falsified since two centuries ago, and at hindsight it is now completely
dismissed without a slightest doubt that this was stemmed from a false
fact. However, in the geocentric era, this false fact that was construed
with its physical paradox, and deduced in its delusion as a scientifically
proven knowledge with precise quantitative measurements, to a great extent
was undoubtedly, independently, and officially accepted for around two
millenniums by the majority of people from all over the world in all walks
of life.

In
ancient Greek astronomy, the mathematical constructs based on geocentric
model can work for quantitative predictions of natural events, such
as the earthly events of
precession cycle, equinox,
and solstice.
Nonetheless, these pragmatic quantitative analyses were fundamentally
established on the fallacious a priori proposition of
an Earth-centered universe.

The
systems of epitrochoid
cycle based on the fallacious a priori
proposition that Earth is the center of the universe, nevertheless
could be successfully used with the deferent
and epicycles of the Sun to make precise quantitative predictions
for geocentric events.

Unsustainably,
these workable quantitative analyses reckoned with
validated deductive proofs for substantiating the claim of fact
that it takes a period of approximately twenty-four hours for the
Sun to revolve around the Earth in a solar
day, is a known fallacy in modern science. A mathematical deduction
substantiated with successful quantitative predictions that were
fundamentally derived in the realm of its artificial cognitive paradox,
can analytically conclude a false fact to be valid with self-fulfilling
prophecy by self-reference.

These
cognitive paradox fallacies, were as the results of the natural
delusions that are being rendered in an apparent geocentric motion.
They were caused by the relative motion illusions with a subliminally
manifested natural negation to result in their fallacious empirical
observations of the natural phenomena.

Image
on right illustrates the basic elements of Ptolemaic
system for astronomy based on the geocentric model, showing
a planet (orange color object) on an epicycle (smaller dotted circle)
with a deferent (larger dotted circle) and an equant
(solid black dot •) directly opposite the Earth (purple and
white color object) from the center of the deferent (symbol x).
Watch a video clip on "Ptolemy's
geocentric universe" for further elaboration.

The
apparent
retrograde motion of a planet can be solved mathematically with
the deferent and epicycle of the planet based on geocentrism. And
the
mathematical construct of epicycle system, developed based on the
apparent planetary motion as observed in the celestial
spheres, can provide workable solutions with its quite precise
quantitative predictions for describing this peculiar phenomenon
that recurs periodically.

The
empirically observed epicycles of planets, were deemed as immutable
facts in the geocentric era.

Apparent
retrograde
motion of Mars.

Nonetheless,
it is now a falsified fact that the planet in its apparent retrograde
motion, is physically moving in the opposite diurnal
motion as it could be empirically observed from the Earth. The delusion
is caused by the cognitive paradox of its relative motion illusion, rendered
with its passive
transformation in the apparently observed
celestial coordinate system.

See
an externally linked topic on "Copernican
Revolution" that elaborates on the heliocentric paradigm shift.

The
heliocentric postulation that all planets rotate and revolve around the
Sun, is a rational proposition that can qualitatively explain the empirically
observed apparent retrograde motions of planets. However, as compared
with the quantitative predictions based on geocentric model that had been
well established for over a millennium, Copernicus
at then was not able to make more precise quantitative predictions for
the empirically observed apparent retrograde motion of planets. His qualitatively
correct heliocentric
based proposition on planets were apparently observed to be in their retrograde
motions, was thus officially rejected with the geocentric peer
review deliberation.

The
mathematical construct of a hypothetical model that can consistently work
with its more precise quantitative predictions, can fallaciously qualify
the a
priori
proposition
of its abstract by self-referencing with circular
definition; the mathematical construct of a paradoxically wrong theory
can pragmatically work with great precision.

“Knowing
how to quantitatively predict a phenomenon would work with its model is
one thing,
how does the phenomenon
actuallywork
in reality could be another thing.”-
UVS inspired-

Without
qualitative evaluation, a highly precise quantitative prediction for an
observed phenomenon, is merely the a posteriori knowledge
of measurement based on its validated theory, which was established in
the abstract of its mathematically quantifiable realm. Although it can
indisputably quantify how the observed phenomenon works in its mathematical
construct, and its know-how could be used in some pragmatic
applications, such as for successful tracking of celestial objects with
its highly precise quantitative predictions as empirically observed, these
are not tantamount to how the observed phenomenon is actually working
in reality.

“What
one has believed as an actuality is one thing,
what is its actuality could be another thing.”- UVS inspired-

A
pragmatic know-how
that is developed in the realm of its scientific model, is not by de-facto
the proof
for the know-what
of its empirical observation. Take for examples, the successful predictions
for natural phenomena with quantitative rigors in the exact
sciences of geocentrism or heliocentrism, are not the proofs
for the postulated first principle or axioms of their models in objective
reality.

Many
engineering
and technological accomplishments, could not be possible without the know-how
of mathematics; mathematics is absolutely an effective tool in engineering
and technological know-how
for pragmatic
theory of truth. Nonetheless, in epistemology, the pragmatic theory
of truth cannot be substantiated as the criteria
of truth for whatever that were being postulated. As valid as they
are, the postulations asserted with precise and absolute mathematical
proofs for their pragmatic theories of truth, are not absolutely conclusive
in objective reality. Thus, the propositional knowledge in maths when
referred to reality for whatsoever that is being emulated, can never by
itself be reckoned as the knowledge
for the actuality of any empirical observation.

“Knowing
how to make it work is one thing, how
it actually works is another issue,
and what you think on how it fundamentally works could be another story.”-
UVS inspired-

It
is a cognitive paradox fallacy that Moon rises in the East and set
in the West as it could be apparently observed from Earth in its
localized reference
frame. Nonetheless, with inductive reasoning based on the heliocentric
model, by tracking the positions of the Moon on a daily basis at
a specific time of the day for its celestial coordinates in the
celestial sphere over a period of a few days, it could be empirically
observed that the Moon actually revolves around the Earth from West
to East; this qualitative analysis in its transcendental perspective
can resolve this cognitive paradox of relative motion illusion that
has paradoxically caused the cognitive paradox fallacy in its delusion.

The
Moon

It
was also a known optical motion illusion of a natural cognitive paradox
that the Moon apparently appears to be simultaneously following every
observer spontaneously, to wherever all these individual observers on
Earth who are each moving independently to different directions. This
is a very amazing natural cognitive paradox, and its discernible optical
illusion can be easily resolved for elucidating its all applicable delusion
of passive transformation in all its localized points of view.

“Truth
is what stands the test of experience.”-
Albert Einstein

Galileo
predicated
with his hypothesis by inductive
reasoning that the time of descent for free falling objects, is independent
of their mass. This was with qualitative rigor in the law
of noncontradiction for the analysis of its a priori
assumption, and the insight of this Galileo's hypothesis had thus addressed
the cognitive paradox fallacy in the Aristotle's theory of gravity, which
falsely states that heavier object falls faster. Galileo proved this predication
by dropping two balls of different mass from the Leaning Tower of Pisa,
and the experiment demonstrated that the time of descent of the balls
is independent of their mass. The experimental proof for the predicated
a priori
proposition, qualitatively concludes as the a
priori
knowledge for free falling objects on their time taken for their descents,
are independent of their mass.

Despite
Galileo believed mathematics is the language of the universe, he emphasized
it with the conviction of his qualitative analyses.

In
an era where astronomy was based on the geocentric model of Aristotelian
universe, all mainstream astronomers in that era believed that
Venus
revolves around Earth like the Moon. At then the extreme crescent
phase of Venus had been observed with naked eye observations, and
it was also known that Moon and Venus shine by reflecting the light
of the Sun.

Although
Galileo
through observations with telescope, had observed Venus did simultaneously
exhibited phases
similar to that of the Moon when they were in close proximity, he
evaluated the actuality for the predicated orbiting path of Venus
with circumspection based on the Copernican
heliocentrism. And after an extensive period of telescopic observation,
by abductive
reasoningin
its transcendental perspective on
Venus
showed its phase and size variations with a peculiarity, which
can only happen if it revolved around the Sun. Galileo thus resolved
the physical
paradox by elucidating its geocentric model delusion for the
orbiting path of Venus, and conclusively proved that Venus revolves
around the Sun and not the Earth.

The
foundation for the a
priori
knowledge on Venus revolves around the Sun, was first established
by inductive reasoning based on the Copernican heliocentrism that intuitively
invoked its transcendental perception. And then with abductive reasoning
in its transcendental perspective for evaluating its observations, which
was by synthetic judgment on the periodically observed phase and size
variations of Venus as seen from a farther away Earth, it thus conclusively
proved the heliocentric predication that asserts Venus revolves around
the Sun.

“In
questions of science, the authority of a thousand
is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”
-
Galileo Galilei

According
to the discipline
of mainstream theoretical
physics that is currently being reckoned by the vast majority of the
experts, without any mathematical equation for its quantitative analysis,
the research done by Galileo that thus had proven Venus revolves around
the Sun, is not science
in its nowadays practice.

Nonetheless,
this Galilean research is absolutely well-grounded
with the proven assertion that has precedential significant, and it refers
to reality for how the observed phenomenon actually works; the proven
predication that asserts Venus revolves around the Sun is indubitably
an epistemic truth
in objective reality for the actuality of its empirical observations.
From the first
principle of this a priori knowledge on Venus revolves
around the Sun, it can then be grounded correctly for developing its a
posteriori
knowledge with quantitative
research, and thus would be able to accurately and precisely predict
the location, phase, size, and brightness of Venus for its time-based
observations from the rotating Earth.

“It
would be better for the true physics if there were no mathematicians on
earth.”-
Daniel
Bernoulli

“We
should remember that there was once a discipline called Natural
Philosophy. Unfortunately, this discipline seems
not to exist today. It has been renamed science, but the science
of today is in danger of losing much of the natural philosophy aspect.”-
Hannes
Alfven, 1986.

Specifically,
the exact
science as defined in the nowadays mainstream physics with the officially
endorsed fundamental theories, is for establishing pragmatic
theories of truth in their subjective realities that emulate the objective
reality, is very much constrained only in the development for the a
posteriori knowledge of measurements with mathematical formalizations.
And generally it merely requires rigorously precise quantitative predictions
in experimental
physics for proving the testable propositions of the empirically observed
natural phenomena, construed in the realms of their models with the officially
endorsed posits.

Unsustainably,
the posits for such typical fundamental theories with the applications
of the contemporary scientific method, were being intrinsically proven
by self-referencing with the a posteriori knowledge that
were established in the their fallaciously endorsed subjective realities.

Critically,
there was no direct
proof that the electron vibration frequency of the caesium-133 atom
used in atomic
clock, would remain stable when it is subjected to different inertial
accelerations. But assumed to be stable, and thus posited
in the mathematical constructs of modern physics, thereon by self-referencing
with its quantitative proofs that were boasted to have greater than ten-digit
precision of a second, tested in collaboration with independent competing
experiments, and asserted with its precise quantitative predictions that
have been overwhelmingly successful for engineering and technological
achievements, it was thus misleadingly used with such convictions to conclude
that transformation of time occurs; the postulation for time is physically
transformable as posited in modern physics was fallaciously proved with
circular
reasoning. This is as fallacious as the claims of proof for geocentrism
with self-fulfilling
prophecy by using its successful quantitative analyses that were validated
by self-reference with its very own hardcore belief, which has had insidiously
corrupted all its perceptions in the realms of its scientific constructs
that were perceived in their topsy-turvy delusions.

“One
can persistently fool himself in a delusion that paradoxically and consistently
asserts
his fallacious belief, and therefore persistently believies in what is
not true.”-
UVS inspired -

See
the UVS topics on "Qualitative
evaluation on time dilation" that elaborates on a crucial foundational
crisis and its artificial cognitive paradoxes in modern physics, and "The
structure of atom" that coherently explicates on how atoms with
their specific resonant frequencies could be vortically manifested.

Intrinsically,
a quantitative proof of a scientific theory, is not the proof
for the scientific theory.

This
is who, what, where, when and why for how the contemporary scientific
method, has had taken the wrong path to establish the current form of
modern physics with its fallacious posit for time, and thus has had rendered
its foundational crisis.

“A
tiny wrong assumption can lead to its huge misadventures.”- UVS inspired-

Without
qualitative proof for the a priori assumption in its criteria
of truth,
all its validated a posteriori deductive proofssubstantiated
with precise and consistent quantitative predictions,
are not conclusive at all when referred to reality.

The empirical observations evaluated with the intrinsically flawed scientific
method, obliviously
suffered all sorts of natural cognitive paradoxes. With all sorts of fallaciously
assumed posit, their hypotheses
thus suffered all sorts of foundational crises. The conclusions of their
experiments, therefore factitiously
suffered all sorts of reification
rendered with their artificial cognitive paradoxes. And they were speciously
validated by self-referencing
with all sorts of circular
definition, which were construed in the subjective realities of their
fallaciously postulated hypothetical
constructs. Consequently, these undertakings with all sorts of complex
circular
reasoning, would inevitably entail all sorts of physical paradox.

To
evaluate the actuality of any natural phenomenon with its scientific
hypothesis that refers to reality, the epistemic
process with qualitative rigor on correspondence
theory of truth for the a priori proposition of its
empirical observation, is the foremost. Despite quantitative
research with true
value is an essential aspect for scientific works, qualitative analysis
must precede quantitative analysis. Without qualitative proof, it cannot
be certain that the quantitative proof of a scientific theory is true.

“I
have often made the hypothesis that ultimately physics will not require
a mathematical statement,
that in the end the machinery will be revealed and the laws will turn
out to be simple.”-
Richard Fenyman

“Looking
back at the worst times, it always seems that they were times
in which there were people who believed with absolute faith and
absolute dogmatism in something. And they were so serious in this
matter that they insisted that the rest of the world agree with
them. And then they would do things that were directly inconsistent
with their own beliefs in order to maintain that what they said
was true.”
- Richard Feynman

See
externally linked topics on "Solar
System model", and "Orrery"
that illustrates the relative positions for the motions of
planets and Moon with Sun as the center of the Solar System.

It
is an immutable fact that all Solar
System objects including the Sun are moving in helical paths
through space while revolving around the Galactic
Center, and this could be visualized from an external reference
frame in their transcendental perspectives.

For
the revelation on this fact, one have to let go the Copernican
heliocentrism and its improved mathematical constructs for the
Solar System model with elliptical orbital motions, which are still
being disseminated in astronomy; this is merely a localized perception
with incomplete view. And in its negation, it would not reflect
the actual celestial
mechanics of planetary motion.

See also a link on "The
Universal Helicola" that presents an impeccable illustration
for spiral motion of Earth's path in space on page 269 in
figure 13.1, it was elaborated qualitatively, analytically
and quantitatively. Watch video clips on "Earth
Rotation & Revolution around a moving Sun" that
illustrates with an external perception for the helical motion
of Earth along a moving Sun, and "The
solar system's motion thru space" for a conceptual
illustration on the spiral motions of planets. Note: Qualitatively,
these animated illustrations would be more accurate if the
barycenter motion of a moving Sun that propagates in a composite
helical path around the Galactic Center were shown, nonetheless,
despite their flaws and technical errors, these were still
excellent animated illustrations for the spiral motion of
planets.

The
Sun exchanges angular momentum primarily with Jupiter, and
also with all other Sun's satellites and stuff in the heliosphere
while the Sun moves. It is a scientific
fact that the Sun spirals to revolve around the barycenter
of the Solar System with its invariable
plane tilted at around 60° in its path. And it is
believed that the Sun revolves by spiraling around the dual-core
Galactic Center of the Milky Way galaxy at the velocity of
approximately 232 km/s, and it takes around 230 million years
to make one revolving cycle.

Any
two celestial objects revolving around each other with their
barycenter vortically moving through space, will spiral in
helical motions with precession effects. In the external reference
frame of the Milky Way galaxy, the Sun as a matter of fact
is moving in a composite helical path around the Galactic
Center. This infers the motion of the Sun is primarily impelled
by the vortical motion of its galaxy. The motion of the Solar
System is a vortical motion transferred from the vortical
motion of the Milky Way galaxy, and the Solar System is being
coalesced in a resonated vortical motion with stellar materials.
This elucidates that the helical motions of Solar System objects,
are manifested by the vortical motion of the Solar System.

“Local
physical laws are determined by the large-scale structure
of the universe.”
- Mach's
principle

The
Newtonian
kinetic energy of Earth according to Kepler's law of planetary
motion, is ~2.687E33 kg.m²/s²
(or joules); ½mv²,
where m is ~5.972E24 kg for the mass of Earth, v is ~30 km/s
for the Earth's orbiting velocity. Nonetheless, Earth moving
through space is impelled by the Milky Way galaxy that moves
at the velocity of ~369
km/s against the CMB
rest frame, therefore a primary kinetic energy of Earth
in this rest frame should be ~4.07E35joules
instead. The
average kinetic energy of the Earth from this transcendental
perspective in the CMB rest frame, is a staggering 151 times
of the quantitatively predicted kinetic energy of the Earth
that was based on a static Sun, which is way far out of reality,
and this has significant induced precession effects on a vortically
spiraling Earth.

With
the resolved cognitive paradoxes, thus render the revelation
on celestial objects are rotating and revolving in spiral
motions, these inductive resolutions have significant
implications for advancing the knowledge of an underlying
celestial mechanism that hitherto has been overlooked
with conventional
wisdom.

The
image to the right is an observation of a newly formed
star
HL Tau with its protoplanet that was coalescing
in a womb of gas.
In the UVS
worldview, the star HL Tau still at infancy stage
of a star birth, is coalescing in vortical motion with
its protoplanet HL Tau b (small circular bright image
at slightly after one o'clock position) also in the
process of forming as a gaseous planet in its resonance
of vortical motion.

“A
paradoxical effect can consistently fool us with
its cognitive paradox in its state of delusion.”
-
UVS inspired -

By
asserting that Kepler's laws of planetary motion were based
on scientifically proven facts, and these laws have had achieved
scientific
consensus with further
support from Newton's laws, in its artificial cognitive
paradox of a static Sun with its putative laws of physics,
one could maintain its propositions are proven; this is a
negated perception of the natural phenomenon that was perceived
in the subjective reality of its model with a static Sun.

This
is how the putative laws of physics could lie with the deductive
inference in the mathematical construct for its empirical
observation when it gets to reality; in its concept from its
localized perception it negates the reality. And in its delusion,
it results in its illusion of knowledge with its a
posteriori deductive proof.

“The
illusion of knowing in a delusion, is apparently real in its
cognitive paradox.”- UVS inspired-

From
the UVS perspective, the barycenter
of the Solar System, is the center of the Solar System.
The Sun and its planets in their resonated precession cycles,
are perpetually spiraling toward the barycenter of the Solar
System that is perpetually moving away with vortical motion
in its helical path in the galactic reference frame; this
renders the phenomenon of planetary orbits
with elliptical and apsidal motions that are precessing in
the localized reference frame of a static Sun.

Note:
The vortical motion in spiral paths of planets were independently
visualized with the UVS model in the UVS topic on "The
structure of galaxy" without any prior reference.
Other similar concepts were later found through the Internet
on further inquiry, such as "Spiral
Forms in Space" as illustrated by Dr. Wilhelm Reich
(MD) in the web site of Dr. James DeMeo, Ph.D., "Universal
Helicola" as illustrated by Dr. Vladimir Ginzburg,
and "The
solar system's motion thru space" as illustrated
by Nassim Haramein. Nonetheless, among these similar illustrations,
UVS uniquely illustrated with empirical evidence for how the
Sun and its planets were vortically formed, why they
propagate in spiral motions through space, and how they are
vortically impelled to move in spiral motion.

The
model suggests in the expansion of space, every celestial
object in approximately 13.8 billion years has reached its
current time-dilated spatial location in a timeline
according to the trajectory of the celestial object in its
expanded space.

"WMAP
definitively determined the age of the universe to be 13.77
billion years old to within 1% (0.12 billion years) -as recognized
in the Guinness Book of World Records!" - excerpt from
"Wilkinson
Microwave Anisotropy Probe".

The
Big Bang model propositioned that the boundary of the observable
universe in every direction, is a view at ~13.8 billion years
ago when the universe was in its primordial stage. Paradoxically,
this is absolutely contradicting in its three
main fundamental aspects to all extents.

It
paradoxically suggests that at the initial stage of the Big
Bang within its first second, the extremely small, dense and
hot state of the nascent universe, is currently being empirically
observed in its time dilation image at ~13.8 billion years
ago to be a spheroidal structure with an extremely large radius
of ~13.8 Gly in an extremely sparse and cooled state.

The
Big Bang model is a self-referenced mathematical construct
that creates an artificial cognitive paradox of the most extreme
physical extents that are fallacious in its contradicting
mathematical realm. With this artificial cognitive paradox
critically resolved, the Big Bang model is so busted; the
Big Bang is a myth.

The
universe's timeline,
from inflation to the WMAP.

"According
to the Big Bang model, the universe expanded from an
extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand
today. A common analogy explains that space itself is
expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like raisins in
a rising loaf of bread. The graphic scheme above is
an artist concept illustrating the expansion of a portion
of a flat universe."
- Excerpt from Wikipedia on
Big Bang.

The
above animation is for illustrating the distance between the
two receding objects in relativistic time, implied to be indifferent
despite they had physically receded from each other in the
metric expansion of space, is merely an artificial cognitive
paradox fallaciously rendered in the hypothesized subjective
reality of the Big Bang model.

The
farthest observed galaxy
Abell 1835 IR1916 in the constellation of Virgo (located
at northern celestial hemisphere), has been observed
to be near the boundary of the observable
universe. This is believed to be a sight when the universe
was merely ~500 million years young with a redshift
factor of z = ~10.0, and it has an angular
diameter distance
of ~2.86 billion
light year (Gly) when the galaxy emitted
its light; this is an empirical evidence that at ~13.2 billion
years ago that farthest galaxy was already at that spatial
location and it had developed to a galaxy of significant size.

Put
on a logic thinking cap and ask the question on how could
the time-dilated image with an approximately 500 million years
young scenario of that primordial galaxy appear at the ~13.2
billion year timeline in a Big Bang expansion; rationally
it is impossible. If the expansion of space had brought that
galaxy there in ~500 million years with the Big Bang expansion,
the observed time-dilated image of the primordial galaxy at
~500 million years young would not be able to appear at that
spatial location in that ~13.2 billion year timeline; the
Big Bang model that suggests the observable universe was created
in a runaway swell of space from within a small hot ball suffers
a physical paradox and therefore is logically fallacious.

It
could be abstractly postulated that the universe is an open
system in the Big Bang model with mathematical
proof such that it would take only ~500 million years
for that distant galaxy
in the expansion of space to have relatively moved at superluminal
speed to be at the angular diameter distance of ~2.86
Gly.
Although this could be analytically understood that it did
not violate Einstein's
theory of special relativity on nothing can move faster
than light through space in the metric expansion of space,
it was still not coherent to what has been empirically observed;
it violates the Einstein's theory of special relativity for
the galaxy to be observable at all in such runaway expansion
of space at superluminal speed. The abstract moot reasoning
deduced to be valid with such mathematical construct is not
substantiatable at all in empiricism when it is referred to
reality; this is merely a baloney of a mathematical realm.

“Since
the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity,
I do not understand it myself anymore.”-
Albert Einstein

As
an analogy, it is like the theorists of geocentrism postulated
that the Sun is revolving around the Earth with its precession
of orbital
inclination. This means everyday the Sun rises from the
horizon with a little shift to the left or to the right as
empirically observed, are depended on the phases of this geocentric
precession. With the apparently observed precession effect
that was analytically consistent and precise with the quantitative
predictions based on this perceived precession of the Sun's
orbital inclination, it was thus claimed that this validated
geocentric precession effect, is a scientific proof for the
geocentric model that posits the Sun is revolving around the
Earth. This is merely a red
herring fallacy stemmed from its delusional observation,
fallaciously proven in its cognitive paradox fallacy with
self-referencing
and circular
reasoning by affirming
the consequent.

Note:
The farthest observed galaxy
cluster JKCS041 is located on the southern celestial hemisphere
(this is opposite to the northern celestial hemisphere where
Abell 1835 IR1916 is located), and measured to be at the ~10.2
billion light-year timeline in the constellation of Cetus,
would also render the Big Bang model to be fallacious from
another logical aspect. This suggests stars were formed in
every direction at the suggested timelines of more than 13
billion years ago in a background temperature of 2.7K. This
suggests that the primordial observable universe was spanning
for at least billions of light-years across, and it was as
evenly cold as it is now being observed across the timeline.
By this analysis itself, it elucidates that the conclusion
of the Big Bang model on the universe has expanded from a
small ball in extremely dense and hot state, is fallacious.

Qualitatively,the
concept-based expansion of space in the Big Bang theory was
an erroneous a priori assumption at the fundamental
level, and in its slippery
slope fallacy, its propositions are therefore fallacious.
The assumption that space can expand is absurd, but it is
amazing for how such fundamental of the natural phenomenon
can be overlooked.

The
majority of experts in cosmology
are obliviously holding a dogmatic belief that modern physics
is an abstract study with rigor in quantitative measurements
using mathematical equations; a hardcore belief in empirically
observed natural phenomena could only be evaluated and validated
with measurements in mathematical constructs based on the
concept of elastic space that had achieved scientific consensus
in modern physics. In the Big Bang model, the three-dimensional
space is variant, therefore it is indifferent for length
and distance in an elastic space. With this ambiguity, it
therefore creates the paradoxical effect with its artificial
cognitive paradox in its mathematical construct, and therefore
leads to its validated mathematically deduced conclusions
that are inherently fallacious.

“Time
and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in
which we live.”-
Albert Einstein

An
a priori assumption of a hypothetical model
that is not proven in qualitative evaluation (such
as in geocentric
model, the Sun takes approximately
twenty-four hours to revolve around the Earth),
could be used to mathematically deduce the hypothetical model
to be valid. A deductive mathematical proof that can quantitatively
predict the observation successfully, is not the proof for
its a priori assumption.

“I
don't believe in mathematics.”-
Albert Einstein

From
the UVS perspective, it is only logical and rational to think
that at the suggested ~13.2 billion timeline, that distant
galaxy Abell 1835 IR1916in
three-dimensional Euclidean
space, was already vortically formed there at that spatial
location as a usual size typical galaxy. Its time dilation
image in a relativistic
Doppler effect thus takes ~13.2 Gly to reach the observer
on Earth, and in absolute
space and time(one temporal dimension
of time and three-dimensional Euclidean space), the
galaxy would have had traveled to a further spatial location
to the comoving
distance of ~31.5 Gly according to its trajectory.

The
apparently observed phenomenon of receding galaxies that infers
the universe is expanding with the Big Bang theory, is indubitably
not as a result of the metric expansion of space, or is the
universe expanding at all as postulated.

After
distant galaxies in all directions were empirically observed
to be receding in acceleration at rates proportional to their
distance, the Big Bang model that describes expansion of space
with deceleration, had then fallen apart.

Cosmic
inflation with a runaway expansion of space answers the
classic conundrum of the big Bang cosmology, it is thus now
considered as part of the standard hot Big Bang cosmology.

In
place of an expanding balloon, the explanation with the Big
Bang model, now adopts the analogy of a raisin
pudding model to explain the empirically observed phenomenon
for the accelerated expansion of space with cosmic inflation.

It
is now postulated in the Big Bang model that space is expanding
exponentially.

Animated
raisin pudding model as the analogy of the Big Bang
expansion.

Nonetheless,
limited by the speed
of light, the empirical observation of the observable universe
on receding galaxies in their frame
of reference, would be apparently affected by timeline and
time dilation effect; this is the composition of a time frame
negation effect.

Hence,
in circumstances of decelerated recession of the galaxies in the
observable universe, those distant galaxies that are apparently
observed in their further timelines of more distant past from
Earth, would paradoxically appear to be receding at increasing
velocities than a distant galaxy at a nearer timeline of lesser
distant past.

This
would naturally render an optical illusion as a result of the
negating effects of timeline and time dilation, and thus renders
the apparent observation on distant galaxies are receding in acceleration
at rates proportional to their distance.

Its
cognitive paradox fallacy is as a result of its empirical observation
that was perceived in its composite optical illusion, which is
rendered by the time frame negation effect of timeline and time
dilation.

The
proposition on the universe is expanding at an increasing rate
with proper distance at proper
time as observed, concluded with the cosmic
scale factor a(t) has a positive second
derivative, did not address or account for the time frame
negation effect; it merely creates a fallacious artificial cognitive
paradox with its mathematical
treatment that misleads people with a misconception to
believe it had accounted for the time frame negation effect.

Paradoxically,
a receding distant galaxy that was later observed to have a higher
velocity in different time frame, was actually its time dilated
image observed at a further timeline of its more distant past.
For instant, a receding distant galaxy observed in its time dilation
image one year later, is paradoxically its image of another one
more year older, which at then the image reaches the Earth from
a farther timeline.

The
mathematical treatment applied to illustrate that space accelerates
exponentially, asserted with the proposition of proper distance
for the calculation of the optically observed deep space objects
that were moving in a frame of reference on different timelines,
will not correct it from its natural cognitive paradox rendered
by the time frame negation effect; the derivation of velocities
among the distant galaxies was apparently observed on different
timelines.

The
peer reviewed conclusion of the revised Big Bang model with cosmic
inflation on exponentially expanding space, is a fallacy.

This
is simply because its mathematical construct with its postulated
metric expansion of space, was stemmed from the natural cognitive
paradox in a composite optical illusion, which is caused by optical
negation rendered by the limited speed of light from distant galaxies
receding on different timelines.

The
proposition for accelerated expansion of space, is a physical paradox
that was fallaciously asserted in its delusional observations, which
had thus entailed its science delusion in the fallacious subjective
reality of its hypothetical construct.

Consequently,
any theory extrapolated from this foundation that was based on the
false fact, would thus be fallacious at its best.

“Without
realizing the cognitive paradoxes that negate to cause delusions
in the observable universe,
the paradoxical effect of nature has had fooled even the very intelligent
people.”-
UVS inspired-

In the UVS worldview
with the natural cognitive paradox resolved and its posit for absolute
space, it predicates
that the distances between distant galaxies in the observable universe,
were extending in absolute space with the vortical chain
reaction of a
nested hypersphere system.

The
accelerated receding of distant galaxies is an optically negated
delusional observation, which is rendered by the paradoxical
effect of nature in a topsy-turvy manner.

The distances between distant galaxies in the observable universe
were extending with a vortical chain reaction in absolute
space.

.The
cognitive paradox fallacy in Michelson-Morley experiment

"Many
astronomers believe the Milky Way is moving at approximately 600
km/s relative to the observed locations of other nearby galaxies.
Another reference frame is provided by the Cosmic microwave background.
This frame of reference indicates that The Milky Way is moving at
around 552 km/s." -
Excerpt from Wikipedia on motion
(physics).

In
a nutshell, with the deduction that a celestial object moving
in a static medium of luminiferous aether would experience
a drag, an aether wind should be detectable. This is because
Earth revolves at approximately 30 km/s around Sun, the Sun
revolves at approximately 232 km/s around the Galactic Center
of Milky Way, therefore Earth moving in this static medium
should show a significant aether wind, and more significantly
if the movement of Milky Way in space relative to Cosmic microwave
background at approximately 552 km/s is considered.

If
there is such an aether wind at all, it should be easily detected
with the interferometer.

However,
in all Michelson-Morley experiments, measurements of such
expectations were not detected at all, it was thus concluded
that the postulated static luminiferous aether does not exist;
the postulated static luminiferous aether would have had been
detected by the Michelson-Morley experiments if it exists
at all.

The
scientific consensus on luminiferous
aether does not exist, was based on a null
hypothesis with the null
result obtained by the Michelson-Morley
experiment. Notwithstandingly, this conclusion is logically
fallacious. It had only concluded that the quantitatively
predicted aether wind was not found with the a priori
assumption that luminiferous aether is a static medium. Neither
Albert Michelson nor Edward Morley had ever considered that
their experiment had disproved the aether hypothesis; it merely
had proven that the postulated static aether does not exist.

“Any
scientific fact must leave no room for any rational doubt.”- UVS inspired-

As
an analogy for the null hypothesis with null result, it would
be similar to setting up an experiment to measure electrical
power with the assumption that the electrical energy of a
running system is operated by direct
current. And after the direct current meter measured nothing,
with the null result it concludes that there is no electrical
current in the running system. This logical fallacy can also
be rhetorically addressed as its evidence
of absence, was concluded with its red
herring fallacy in its ignoratio
elenchi.

With
the assumption that luminiferous aether is a static medium,
one could regressively maintain a fallacious self-referential
cognitive paradox with strawman
argument to assert that aether was scientifically proven
to be nonexistence with its
bigotry argument
from authority. This is merely a formal fallacy
of affirming
the consequent in the subjective reality of its hypothetical
construct.

“Science
is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”-
Richard Feynman

All the conclusions for aether does not exist in the abstract
mathematical constructs based on the absurd assumptions of
transformable space or reified time, were deduced with self-fulfilling
prophecies by self-reference;
such artificial cognitive paradox fallacies were rendered
by their philosophies of science that do not require aether
to exist in their mathematical constructs. It is merely the
dogma in the belief system of mathematical
physics that asserts aether does not exist with its argument
from authority.

In
a world naturally imbues with all sorts of delusion under
all sorts of subliminally
negated circumstances, the situations are extremely difficult
for suggesting the paradoxically obscured actualities of the
apparently observed natural phenomena.

In
the paradoxes of universal delusions, advocating the subliminally
negated actualities of natural phenomena, is inevitably a
revolutionary act.

“If
you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it
contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must
abandon
the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings.”
-
Leonardo da Vinci

“In
questions of science, the authority of a thousand
is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”-
Galileo Galilei

“It
is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities
are wrong.”
- Voltaire

“If
you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor.”-
Albert Einstein

“A
man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.”-
Albert Einstein

“It
is the theory that decides what can be observed.”-
Albert Einstein

“The
history of our study of our solar system shows us clearly that accepted
and
conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights
can arise from the most unexpected sources.”
- Carl Sagan

“It
is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to
persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”
- Carl Sagan

“False
facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they
often endure long;”-
Charles Darwin

“A
truth that's told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent.”
- William Blake

“You
never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change
something,
build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
- R. Buckminster Fuller

“The
greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance,
it is the illusion of knowledge.”-
Daniel Joseph Boorstin

These
predications are always subjected to refinements in positive feedback
loops, which strive on their accuracy
with their empirical
evidence for the postulated actualities
of their empirical observations. Their
propositions with rigorous verifications could thus be falsified, or conclusively
proven with their correspondence
theory of truth. The falsified predications were then revamped, or
rejected.

Remarks:
Galileo Galilei based his hypothesis on heliocentrism had qualitatively
predicted that ocean tides are caused by the Earth’s rotation and
its orbit around the Sun. He reasoned that as the Earth moves, the oceans
sloshed around thus resulting in tides. This predication was falsified
in modern astronomy with the empirical observations of the daily two tides
on Earth are primarily caused by the gravitational force of the Moon,
which thus proved the predication made by Johannes Kepler on ocean
tide. Nevertheless, Galileo's predication on Venus revolves around
the Sun and not the Earth, was indubitably justified with qualitative
proof for its actuality.

Despite
the inductive
resolutions of natural phenomena in the UVS research are mostly in
their qualitative forms, many of these evidently verified a priori
propositions by themselves as they are with their elucidated delusions
and resolved cognitive paradoxes, have had eradicated the fallaciously
justified true beliefs of their knowledge in conventional
wisdom.

The
methodically proven a priori propositions of UVS, are
therefore unequivocally the well justified true beliefs that are free
of paradoxically fallacious
Gettier
problems, and thus by themselves are the a
priori
knowledge for the actualities of the qualitatively evaluated natural
phenomena.

The
proven predications can then be accurately developed further, which is
by extending on their a priori knowledge for developing
their quantitative
research to accurately establish their a
posteriori
knowledge with quantitative precision.

Note:
Click on any of the symbolic buttons below next to its predication for
accessing the relevant UVS research on that particular natural phenomenon.

List of the
UVS predications:

An inviscid aetheric medium is almost all-pervasive throughout the entire
observable universe.

The observable universe was formed in a torus-shaped vortical system
and it is primarily precessing in its two-axis rotation.

The observable universe is in a perpetual vortical motion and was vortically
emerged from the vortical motion of an almost all-pervasive inviscid
medium.

The observable universe is
formed in a paradigm of unisonal vortices in a hyperspheric vortical universe.

The
distances between distant galaxies in the observable
universe were extending with a vortical chain reaction in absolute
space.

A supervoid is a vortically resonated spheroidal unisonal vortex.

Superclusters are held at the outer edges on adjoining surfaces of the
supervoids.

A larger
galaxy cluster with hundreds of galaxy clusters is vortically held by
a nested spheroidal vortex to vortically revolve around its center of
mass.

A galaxy cluster with thousands of galaxies are vortically held by a
nested spheroidal vortex to vortically revolve around its center of
mass.

The formation of stars in a cluster of galaxies is systematically caused
by the vortical motion of its nested intergalactic spheroidal vortex.
With credit to Professor Christopher W. Hodshire from Western Michigan
University.

A galaxy cluster is
vortically manifested and impelled in its nested intergalactic spheroidal
vortex

A local galaxy group with tens of galaxies are vortically held by a
nested spheroidal vortex to
vortically revolve around its center
of mass.

A galaxy group is vortically formed, impelled, and encapsulated by an
optically invisible nested intergalactic spheroidal unisonal vortex.

A galaxy
is vortically
formed and impelled by the galactic vortex pair manifested in
its galactic spheroidal unisonal vortex.

The gravitational singularity of a supermassive black hole is collectively
manifested with the vortical gravitational singularities of all other
star systems in the same galaxy.

A supermassive black hole is a vortical void of luminiferous aether
displaced by the vortical gravitational singularity of its galaxy.

Satellite galaxy is induced by satellite galactic vortex of a main galactic
vortex.

The
ripping of a galaxy is caused by the cyclonic gravity field effect from
another larger galaxy system on near encounter.

A
globular cluster is formed in the wake of a dissipated satellite galactic
polar vortex pair, which was flattening its satellite galactic spheroid.

Elliptical
galaxy
is formed in the wake of a dissipated galactic vortex pair, which was
flattening its inner nested galactic spheroid vortex

Cometary
x-ray is caused by a highly energetic spinor field that underlies and
resonates with the coma intensively to vortically impel its electrostatically
encapsulated ions.

Lagrangian points can be manifested from the spinor field of a planetary
barycenter that interacts with another Solar System objects.

The gas tail of comet is a glowing section of unisonal vortex manifested
in the coma.

The dust tail of the comet is formed by the vortrex of its gas tail
vortex.

The vacuum in the gas tail of comet is the void in the vortex column
of its coma.

The craters on a comet can be drilled and carved by the vortical culmination
of manifested unisonal vortices in the coma.

The splitting of comet can be caused by the cyclonic gravity field effect
from larger suspended spheroid on near encounter.

The gas tail of the comet points directly to the dual-core barycenter
of the solar system.
The gas tail of the comet is always aligned with vortically counteracted
magnetic spoke lines of the Solar System while it moves around the Sun.
Revamped.

Planetary rings are flattened polar vortex pairs of the
outer atmospheric layers of a planet.

The
Great White Spot on Saturn is a vortex cluster spawned by the revolving
precession effect of Saturn with an intensified jet stream periodically
manifested by its axial tilt.

The ring system of
a celestial object are vortically formed by resonated motion of the
nested celestial object with its flattened nested polar vortex pair.

The hexagonal structure on the polar vortex of Saturn is caused by a
triple precession cycle with six conjunctions of Sun, Jupiter and Saturn.
With
credits to Graham
Burnett.

The cloud bands on Jupiter are formed by the nested polar vortex pair
of Jupiter with their cascaded vortex columns opened to different extents
on its nested atmosphere.

The jet streams on Jupiter are manifested by the vortrices of the nested
polar vortex pair of Jupiter.

The
ovals and storms on Jupiter are coalesced by satellite vortices manifested
and impelled by the nested polar vortex pair of Jupiter.

The Jupiter's retrograde cloud bands are formed by the differential
motions in the chains of merged cyclonic satellite vortex clusters.

The Great Red Spot of Jupiter is primarily impelled by the three
Galilean moons in Laplace resonance.
The Great Red Spot is a persistent atmospheric eddy of its anti-cyclonic
satellite vortex formed at a fixed spot.
Revamped.

Solar System objects were manifested by vortical spin fusion of interstellar
clouds in resonant frequencies of standing wave and they are vortically
propagating in longitudinal waves.

The Solar System is formed in a planetary vortical system that has manifested
in the galactic vortical system of the Milky Way.

The
orbitals of natural satellites were developed as a result of conserved
angular momentum are being transferred from their underlying nested
spheroidal vortices.

The elliptical orbit of a planet with apsidal precession
is rendered by its vortical interactions of its star and the barycenter
of its planetary system.

The
first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the
easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After
you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You
just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.

I
would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something
I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're
talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating
on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when
you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary
human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm
talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but
bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought
to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as
scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.

For
example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was
going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and
he wondered how he would explain what the applications of his work were.
"Well", I said, "there aren't any". He said, "Yes,
but then we won't get support for more research of this kind". I
think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist,
then you should explain to the layman what you're doing -- and if they
don't support you under those circumstances, then that's their decision.

One
example of the principle is this: If you've made up your mind to test
a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to
publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a
certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish BOTH
kinds of results.

I
say that's also important in giving certain types of government advice.
Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole
should be done in his state; and you decide it would be better in some
other state. If you don't publish such a result, it seems to me you're
not giving scientific advice. You're being used. If your answer happens
to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they
can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way,
they don't publish at all. That's not giving scientific advice.

Other
kinds of errors are more characteristic of poor science. When I was at
Cornell, I often talked to the people in the psychology department. One
of the students told me she wanted to do an experiment that went something
like this -- it had been found by others that under certain circumstances,
X, rats did something, A. She was curious as to whether, if she changed
the circumstances to Y, they would still do A. So her proposal was to
do the experiment under circumstances Y and see if they still did A.

I
explained to her that it was necessary first to repeat in her laboratory
the experiment of the other person -- to do it under condition X to see
if she could also get result A, and then change to Y and see if A changed.
Then she would know the real difference was the thing she thought she
had under control.

She
was very delighted with this new idea, and went to her professor. And
his reply was, no, you cannot do that, because the experiment has already
been done and you would be wasting time. This was in about 1947 or so,
and it seems to have been the general policy then to not try to repeat
psychological experiments, but only to change the conditions and see what
happened.

Nowadays,
there's a certain danger of the same thing happening, even in the famous
field of physics. I was shocked to hear of an experiment being done at
the big accelerator at the National Accelerator Laboratory, where a person
used deuterium. In order to compare his heavy hydrogen results to what
might happen with light hydrogen, he had to use data from someone else's
experiment on light hydrogen, which was done on a different apparatus.
When asked why, he said it was because he couldn't get time on the program
(because there's so little time and it's such expensive apparatus) to
do the experiment with light hydrogen on this apparatus because there
wouldn't be any new result. And so the men in charge of programs at NAL
are so anxious for new results, in order to get more money to keep the
thing going for public relations purposes, they are destroying -- possibly
-- the value of the experiments themselves, which is the whole purpose
of the thing. It is often hard for the experimenters there to complete
their work as their scientific integrity demands.

All
experiments in psychology are not of this type, however. For example,
there have been many experiments running rats through all kinds of mazes,
and so on -- with little clear result. But in 1937 a man named Young did
a very interesting one. He had a long corridor with doors all along one
side where the rats came in, and doors along the other side where the
food was. He wanted to see if he could train the rats to go in at the
third door down from wherever he started them off. No. The rats went immediately
to the door where the food had been the time before.

The
question was, how did the rats know, because the corridor was so beautifully
built and so uniform, that this was the same door as before? Obviously
there was something about the door that was different from the other doors.
So he painted the doors very carefully, arranging the textures on the
faces of the doors exactly the same. Still the rats could tell. Then he
thought maybe the rats were smelling the food, so he used chemicals to
change the smell after each run. Still the rats could tell. Then he realized
the rats might be able to tell by seeing the lights and the arrangement
in the laboratory like any commonsense person. So he covered the corridor,
and still the rats could tell.

He
finally found that they could tell by the way the floor sounded when they
ran over it. And he could only fix that by putting his corridor in sand.
So he covered one after another of all possible clues and finally was
able to fool the rats so that they had to learn to go in the third door.
If he relaxed any of his conditions, the rats could tell.

Now,
from a scientific standpoint, that is an A-number-one experiment. That
is the experiment that makes rat-running experiments sensible, because
it uncovers that clues that the rat is really using -- not what you think
it's using. And that is the experiment that tells exactly what conditions
you have to use in order to be careful and control everything in an experiment
with rat-running.

I
looked up the subsequent history of this research. The next experiment,
and the one after that, never referred to Mr. Young. They never used any
of his criteria of putting the corridor on sand, or being very careful.
They just went right on running the rats in the same old way, and paid
no attention to the great discoveries of Mr. Young, and his papers are
not referred to, because he didn't discover anything about the rats. In
fact, he discovered all the things you have to do to discover something
about rats. But not paying attention to experiments like that
is a characteristic example of cargo cult science.

“And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not
to fool yourself,
that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult
science.”-
Richard Fenyman

From
what comes later; after experience. From particular effects to a general
principle; based upon actual observation or upon experimental data:
an a posteriori argument that derives the theory from the evidence.

An
a
posteriori offering or suggesting something
to be considered, accepted, adopted, or done.

cognition

-

The
understanding and trying to make sense of the world.

cognitive
paradox

-

A
paradox
that is paradoxically a cognitive contradiction of its actuality.

cognitive
paradox fallacy

-

The
formal logical fallacy of a cognitive paradox.

delusion

-

A
false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.

empirical

-

Derived
from or guided by experience or experiment; provable or verifiable
by experience or experiment.

enigma

-

Something
that baffles understanding and cannot be explained.

enlighten

-

Give
greater knowledge and understanding about a subject or situation.

epistemic

-

The
conditions for acquiring knowledge.

first
principle

-

The
first basis from which a thing is known.

hypothesis

-

A
proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for
the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted
merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working
hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established
facts.

inductive
analysis

-

A
form of analysis based on inductive reasoning; a researcher using
inductive analysis starts with answers, but forms questions throughout
the research process.

inversed
illusion

-

A
peculiar type of illusion that paradoxically appears in an inverse
manner.

inviscid

-

Having
no viscosity.

macrocosm

-

The
great world or universe; the universe considered as a whole (opposed
to microcosm ). A representation of a smaller unit or entity by a
larger one, presumably of a similar structure.

microcosm

-

A
little world; a world in miniature (opposed to macrocosm ).

natural
phenomenon

-

A
natural phenomenon is a non-artificial event in the physical sense,
and therefore not produced by humans, although it may affect humans.

nothingness

-

A
state of existence beyond perceivable bandwidth therefore renders
as nothing in the perceived state; the state of being nothing.

“With
great
admiration.”(3rd
June 2014)
- Dr. Vuthipong Priebjrivat, B.S. in civil engineering from Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, M.S. in environmental engineering from Stanford
University, Ph.D. in economics and public management from the University
of Chicago, metaphysicist, corporate leader, law maker, and author of
several books such as "DRAW
YOUR THOUGHTS" that elaborates and illustrates a peculiar type
of analytical method, "DHARMODYNAMICS",
"NEODHARMA",
"DHARMOSCIENCE",
"SANKHARA"
that coherently elaborate with "draw your thoughts" on some
intrinsic structures for nature of reality in its transcendental perspectivalism.

“Also
loved reading your research again. It does make me rethink and in some
cases, relearn my understanding of the cosmos.”
(28th Aug 2012)
- Professor Christopher W. Hodshire from Western Michigan University.

“I
fully subscribe to the vortex theory---it makes mechanical sense more
than mathematical sense. It doesn't make any difference if you think the
world is infinite---the vortex theory will work on its own merits.”
(4th Jul 2011)
- Gerald (aka spacedout of TOEQuest Forum).

“Objectively
speaking, even in its present mostly qualitative form, UVS makes a significant
contribution to the discovery of spiral nature of the universe. No person
holds a complete truth about the nature of the universe, and UVS brings
attention of scientists to an interesting path of solving this very challenging
problem.”,
“With
great respect, Vladimir.”
(28th
Jun 2009)
- Dr.
Vladimir B. Ginzburg, mathematician,
accomplished material scientist, author of "Prime
Elements of Ordinary Matter, Dark Matter & Dark Energy",
"Spiral Grain of the Universe" and several other renowned books
such as "Metallurgical
Design of Flat Rolled Steels" for applied science, and holds
over fifty U.S. and foreign patents.

“Hi
Vincent, I have been reading posts in forums like this one since forums
began, and you are the first poster to spark my imagination again, and
I like to thank you for this.”(31st
Mar 2008)
- Allen Barrow (aka PoPpAScience of TOEQuest Forum).

“This
(UVS)
is coming in a big way.”
(Oct 2007)
- Au Mun Chew, sidewalk astronomer, retired lecturer of National
University of Singapore.

Author's
note: When I was awakened to the idea of a vortical universe in May 2007
as a layperson, and subsequently have had developed the model of Universal
Vortical Singularity (UVS model) by associating it with other academic
studies for its formalization, I did not know at all that any of such
vortex theory had ever existed. This was until Jim Mash (Author of "Fluid
Energy theory") had first brought the Cartesian
vortex cosmology by Rene Descartes to my attention in June 2008, and
later was aware of Walter
Russell Cosmogony after Dean Ward and Allen Barrow brought Walter
Russell to my attention in Oct 2008. A modern era publication that had
categorically summarized the numerous studies and researches for spirals
of nature as recorded in various era, presented in "From
cosmic whirl to vortices"
by Vladimir B. Ginzburg, later came to my attention in June 2009. These
were after the vortical universe concept for UVS was already quite developed
with 138 UVS predications.
Even then, UVS still has its uniqueness among these other vortex theories
for its inductive resolutions construed with the UVS research methodology
on numerous enigmatic natural phenomena. June 2009.

Disclaimers:
The treatise of Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS) in its epistemological
paradigm shift, is fundamentally unconventional. Its hypotheses grounded
on a generally unheard-of UVS model, bound to have shortcomings, such
as loose ends, errors, and omissions errors. Many details and assumptions
in its propositions have yet to be further researched, probed, evaluated,
validated, or verified. Its implicit explanations are for casual understanding
of the UVS topics presented in the UVS worldview, so if any term or statement
is offensive in any manner from whatsoever perspectives, is most regretted.
Links to other sites do not imply endorsement of their contents; apply
appropriate discretion whenever necessary. Also, the content of the UVS
topics, from time to time could be arbitrarily modified without any notice.

Viewing
tips: Despite the presentations of the UVS web pages has went through
much accommodation for their viewings on smart phones, they are still
not entirely friendly to these mobile devices. For the best experiences,
use a MS Windows based PC or computer system with Java enabled browser
for running its interactive applets.
(Such asJava
Applet of Moiré pattern,JPL
Small-Body Database Browser, andPlanet
Finder.)

Copyright
information: This UVS web site is for non-profit purposes and not for
commercial use. Wherever possible, direct credits to the origins of the
works or images were provided, be it onfair
dealings, with explicit permission from
their owners, or the materials were believed to be from thepublic
domain.